Anime and Wikipedia

[Direct X]

Well since I havent properly decided where this should go (moderators please decide if appropriate), I was skimming along the garbage lines of wikipedia and noticed this under "The History Of Anime" entry:

"In 2007, another attempt at reviving the Super Robot genre has been made by the popular Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann, which is notable for combining the Super Robot genre with elements from Real Robot shows of the 1980s and "Evangelion-era" shows of the late 1990s, particularly in the second half of the series which sees 1970s-inspired Super Robot protagonists (Spirals) in conflict with Evangelion-inspired mecha antagonists (Anti-Spirals). Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann's strong message of hope (represented by the protagonists) is a response to the increasingly cynical, nihilistic and dystopian views of humanity (represented by the Beastmen and Anti-Spiral antagonists) commonly found in Mecha anime since Neon Genesis Evangelion and as a science fiction trend in genera"

Now, not that I am being picky or anything.

But the guidelines of Wikipedia states that an entry should have a common flow of general information pertaining to the main idea of an entry.


This section seems to violate that seeing as how it is specifically elaborated on as if it were it's own section.

I ask if this somehow gives an aura of opinion rather than a generalized fact that pertains to the main idea?

[Wingnut]

Yeah. That bit you posted is 100% opinion. Do they cite any sources at all? Wiki is really picky when it comes to posting stuff like this without proof. (I've seen several 100% accurate SRW articles get the axe because they lacked a source that backed them up.)

[Direct X]

Yeah. That bit you posted is 100% opinion. Do they cite any sources at all? Wiki is really picky when it comes to posting stuff like this without proof. (I've seen several 100% accurate SRW articles get the axe because they lacked a source that backed them up.)

There is a source, but it's nowhere near a reference to anything said for his example.

hence, it should also get the axe.

And yes, it is a shame when really good entries get cut due to lack of a source (or the loss of one).

[azrael]

As always, this is just one of many inherited problems of Wikipedia. If a reference is misinterpreted or if an opinion article or blog is taken as fact, then the article needs to be corrected.

[Direct X]

As always, this is just one of many inherited problems of Wikipedia. If a reference is misinterpreted or if an opinion article or blog is taken as fact, then the article needs to be corrected.

I just think it's wrong to elaborate on an anime within a "History Of Anime" entry.

You're describing the history of anime, not any particular one. Hence, the information should relate to the subject at hand and not offshoot into elaboration on a part of the whole.

[OpMegs]

If there's one thing I've noted a lot of, it's that their anime pages in general seem pretty sparse. For instance, the pages on the Angels of Evangelion used to have images of each that you could glance at or expand for a better look. So did the characters' pages on Gurren Lagann, or the page on the various Gunmen. Now, none of those pages has pictures at all, and they're hardly the only ones.

Furthermore, I'm sure everyone's familiar with the dreaded "This article describes fictional content in a primarily in-universe style..." warning.

[AmuroNT1]

Wiki's been suffering a bout of deletionists in the recent past; as I'm sure everyone knows, there was one person who went on a crusade that got almost every CE mecha profile removed (except the Strike, Freedom, Justice, Astray, and inexplicably the BuCUE). Oddly enough, that same person campaigned to get the entry on Hindu mythology deleted...

Of course, even when info is left intact, it's not always trustworthy. I distinctly remember the back-and-forth as Kira fans and Shinn fans went into the S-Freedom and Destiny's profiles, each changing the one piloted by their favorite into being the strongest MS in all of Cosmic Era and dismissing the other as "highly flawed".

[Koshernova]

Not to mention absolutely ludicrous fabrications such as "Lalah Sune is an artificial newtype".

Just checked, it's been PUT IN AGAIN after I corrected it. Jesus.

[MrMarch]

I find the most problematic aspect of anime on the Wikipedia is the lack of proper information and the awfully disorganized manner in which the entries are written. I'm only an amatuer writer myself with a lot to learn, but even my work is far superior to what is often found on the Wiki. That lack of organization and proper information on the Wiki is one reason I created the Macross Mecha Manual for the Macross franchise. Plus, there is still to this day some lingering Robotech trolls that just can't leave Macross well enough alone. Much like many here have indicated with their own Gundam experiences on the Wiki, there have been more than our fair share of vandals on the Macross sections of the Wiki.

[Koshernova]

There is a wiki anime project within Wikipedia, and many pages adhere to certain standards. However, it's true that a lot of stuff is garbage.

I find it amazing that Gundam suffers so much, when a lot of more minor series have largely accurate info on Wikipedia...

[toysdream]

I find it amazing that Gundam suffers so much, when a lot of more minor series have largely accurate info on Wikipedia...

I think AmuroNT1 and MrMarch probably put their finger on the problem. "Minor series" don't have dozens of cranks and know-it-alls constantly tinkering with their entries. On the other hand, major works like American TV shows have a critical mass of people who actually know what they're talking about, making it possible for the fan community to police the entries. I think Gundam may fall into an awkward in-between zone where the number of people who want to express their opinion far exceeds the number of people who have anything worthwhile to contribute.

-- Mark

[azrael]

I just think it's wrong to elaborate on an anime within a "History Of Anime" entry.

You're describing the history of anime, not any particular one. Hence, the information should relate to the subject at hand and not offshoot into elaboration on a part of the whole.

That's very true. In an article that is suppose to be all encompassing, that little blurb could be seen as extra information and not relevant to the article.

That paragraph is a bit too directed to Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann. It's not 2008, in fact there is still a month left before. Did Lagann create a very distinct movement? We don't know. So accuracy is in question.

Gundam and Macross, being 2 of many long running franchises suffers probably due to the fanbases. With Gundam, the fanbase is huge and we have the telephone effect. This person told this person who told that person who told this person, etc....We have so many people running around with info that the info will get misinterpreted and hence, the inaccuracies start. With Macross, we have a he-said (Macross fans) vs. she-said (Robotech fans) issue. But then again, every article on Wiki suffers these problems.

[Kuruni]

Lately, when I want to learn something new about Gundam from Wiki, I click on Japaneese link of same article and try to translate it.

Weird enough, I remember there were some of actually fun to read article there. But most of them seem to huffed, or FUBAR, in deletion fest while more crappy stuff survive (well, the crap do outnumber nice articles).

Since Wingnut mention SRW's articles, I would like to note that after compare them with Gundam's, it look like SRWish Wikipedian work by goto Japaneese article then translate it while Gundam fan simply copy and paste profile from MAHQ .

[ZeonfromHell]

Just as i said in another post: don't trust Wikipedia. Wikipedia is one of those things where know-it-alls and Laz-Z-boy-experts go and get off. It's good as a starting point to find references, but in the real world where you do college reports and research for professional purposes, Wikipedia might as well be a crappy angelfire site made by that kid you hated in highschool that knew everything and, according to him, made you out to be wrong every time.

Another thing about mecha topics in Wikipedia, there are a lot of unofficial (read "flawed and innacurrate") guides out there in the often dangerous place called the internet. This is true of everything, not just mecha. If this was a Star Wars forum, we would be discussing the innacurracies dealing with entries on the destruction of the first Jedi Temple. If it was Star Trek, we would discuss the continuity errors dealing with the number of decks on a Sovereign class starship (since Picard said there were 24 in First Contact, but "deck 27" was said in a mistaken dialogue in Nemesis).

[DAG101]

yeah, kinda off topic, I fixed something on Wikipedia concerning Turn X and Turn A each having only part of the Moonlight Butterfly system, and today...correction unfixed! now, this proves someone must think stuff that completly clashes with the continuity MUST be true

[Kuruni]

Well, for MB issue. Can you provide me exact episode number that Turn A or Turn X use MB by itself? A clear-solid point often stop nonsense to show up again (like how "Rena prefer Coordinator OS" crap stop after certain dude copy Mark's statement at GOUF that she use Duel Dagger, not Long Dagger (they're quite persist though, at leastnow they honestly say "Rena can use Coordinator OS" is mere speculation)).